Dash Trust Protectors Please React!

[xkcd]

I have publicly stated that I refuse to work with Mark Mason in any capacity. I have also sent an email to the Trust Protectors requesting immediate reactions, removing Mark Mason from the DTPs board and public condemnation of his actions

We can skirt around the issues all day long, the fact remains in the first post an attack was made at the sovereignty of the DTP by Robert to remove a democratically elected member. This speaks volumes to his regard of the MNOs wishes. Remember, I have coined the term that under Ryan Taylor the network always comes last and Robert, one of his lieutenants no doubt still marches to that rule. For as long as there is breath in my lungs, I will always call out this bad behaviour and I won't be stopped by people that aim to change the narrative and protect the wonderful benefits that an organisation like DCG affords them.

 

[xkcd]

The latest DCG release to production was in June 2021. It was v0.17.0.3.

Releases · dashpay/dash

Dash - Reinventing Cryptocurrency. Contribute to dashpay/dash development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

The list of winning DCG proposals since then.

DASH Proposal Owners - glennaustin

Dash DAO Proposal Owners

apogee.dynu.net

Cost? $4.5million USD. I am not going to sit here and be shouted at DCG staff when they fail to do the bear minimum and that is deliver software to mainnet. It is beyond my belief that DCG staff should still feel so entitled that they argue and rage against MNOs instead of cleaning house and getting the work done.

 

[vazaki3]

Cost? $4.5million USD. I am not going to sit here and be shouted at DCG staff when they fail to do the bear minimum and that is deliver software to mainnet. It is beyond my belief that DCG staff should still feel so entitled that they argue and rage against MNOs instead of cleaning house and getting the work done.

Not 4.5 million. 14.5 million USD in 3 years, is the correct.
But who cares about 14.5 million USD?
The problem is whether you insulted a snowflake, and whether they had or not a romantic affair.....
SKINSATIONAL - Cleopatra's Milk Bath~MAKE YOUR OWN! | Jade Madden - YouTube

 

[Dash Trust Protectors]

View attachment 11168

For 1. There is no police report that Mark is referring to. So that is incorrect.

Dear Dash Community,

@QuantumExplorer had asked DTPs in Discord to produce the police report on Alisha after it was referred to in the DTP investigation report. A DTP member then called the Henderson, NV police department and was able to obtain this report.

We have helped to decipher the police code used in the report based on the Las Vegas/Henderson, Nevada IDF standards:
1) PR means "person reporting" in police-speak
2) 420 is the code for homicide
3) 447T - 447 refers to a civil matter and the T means a report had been taken under previous event number. This part is hard to decipher in the context of the report but may not be as relevant overall.
4) MS-13 - For the non-Americans or those that may not know, this is a notorious illegal drugs related gang known for their brutality and cruelty.

Background: Alisha is the co-founder of the US Blockchain Association along with David Kam who is the report complainant.

 

[Mark Mason]

I can confirm that Alisha was not working with DCG in any capacity at the time Mark fabricated this new set of lies

Trust Protectors Report - Disclosure on Alisha's recent activities with DCG

A Trust Protector was contacted and has been informed directly by Glenn (after posting his public response) confirming that Alisha had in fact worked with DCG personnel on content creation around the time the community brought the police report to DCG’s attention. What other DCG members are likely claiming is that Alisha had not been paid by DCG in a long time, so this recent interaction with Alisha does not constitute “working with DCG”. However, it would be disingenuous and unfair for us not to disclose this material information to the network for a balanced perspective. It is also an important matter of fact to clarify, as seen as DCG has not subsequently updated or communicated this to the network in any capacity to date. In addition, we believe it is important that it is disclosed to the network that DCG was actually responsible for and paid for the publishing of the crypto gummies newswire, not Alisha as originally claimed, and that crypto gummies was not Dash exclusive, as claimed by Glenn.

Trust Protectors Report - Is DCG obligated to respond about their working relationship with Alisha in light of the Police Report by the U.S. Blockchain Association?

DCG has a legal fiduciary duty to the network. We believe that any community member asking DCG questions, in the appropriate channels, for clarity about business development partner relations or expenditure on partners with the use of network funds is legitimate and appropriate. Such questions do not equate to accusations of embezzlement, when it’s simply being asked to verify if this is true or not. A simple answer to such questions is required, no more, no less, in our view.

Trust Protectors Report - Did Mark accuse DCG of financial embezzlement or misappropriation of DCG funds?

From the text we’ve reviewed we do not believe so. Mark clearly asked for verification indicating that only Glenn could confirm if Alisha did receive any fundings from DCG as Glenn is in charge of expenditure, managing DCG department funds. We do not believe a question directed to DCG asking for clarity in order to establish what is true equates to accusing DCG of financial embezzlement or misappropriation of DCG funds. There is no other way to establish this without asking the source, which is exactly what Mark, and others before him, did.

Trust Protectors Report - Did Mark reveal confidential information shared with the DTPs by Ryan Taylor?

Subsequent to the meeting on 22nd Feb 2022 where Ryan announced his departure to the TPs, the agreed-upon messaging for Ryan's departure was not honored by DCG Board members, with several posts from DCG Board members incorrectly informing the network and DCG employees that Ryan was either removed, or forced out, “lynched” etc, and directly passing blame to MNOs. This is wholly inappropriate and deceptive behavior given the messaging agreed with the DTPs. Therefore, we do not believe it is warranted, or helpful, for DCG board members to demand severe consequences for Mark for just being honest in response to a DCG initiated deviation from the messaging agreed upon between Ryan, DCG and the TPs.

Ryan's wishes to conceal the specifics of his personal reasons have still remained confidential and have been honored, as have all other details of the meeting.

We are not able to confirm if Ryan's request for those personal reasons to be removed from the DCG Board meeting notes from February 3rd, 2022 have happened or not. We were informed by Ryan that it was the responsibility of Robert to do that.

Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BOxH-bVpRACVtX9Mryt7-TYbh9SPEaRO/view

 

[ErnestoContrerasLatAm]

Trust Protectors Report - Disclosure on Alisha's recent activities with DCG

A Trust Protector was contacted and has been informed directly by Glenn (after posting his public response) confirming that Alisha had in fact worked with DCG personnel on content creation around the time the community brought the police report to DCG’s attention. What other DCG members are likely claiming is that Alisha had not been paid by DCG in a long time, so this recent interaction with Alisha does not constitute “working with DCG”. However, it would be disingenuous and unfair for us not to disclose this material information to the network for a balanced perspective. It is also an important matter of fact to clarify, as seen as DCG has not subsequently updated or communicated this to the network in any capacity to date. In addition, we believe it is important that it is disclosed to the network that DCG was actually responsible for and paid for the publishing of the crypto gummies newswire, not Alisha as originally claimed, and that crypto gummies was not Dash exclusive, as claimed by Glenn.

Trust Protectors Report - Is DCG obligated to respond about their working relationship with Alisha in light of the Police Report by the U.S. Blockchain Association?

DCG has a legal fiduciary duty to the network. We believe that any community member asking DCG questions, in the appropriate channels, for clarity about business development partner relations or expenditure on partners with the use of network funds is legitimate and appropriate. Such questions do not equate to accusations of embezzlement, when it’s simply being asked to verify if this is true or not. A simple answer to such questions is required, no more, no less, in our view.

Trust Protectors Report - Did Mark accuse DCG of financial embezzlement or misappropriation of DCG funds?

From the text we’ve reviewed we do not believe so. Mark clearly asked for verification indicating that only Glenn could confirm if Alisha did receive any fundings from DCG as Glenn is in charge of expenditure, managing DCG department funds. We do not believe a question directed to DCG asking for clarity in order to establish what is true equates to accusing DCG of financial embezzlement or misappropriation of DCG funds. There is no other way to establish this without asking the source, which is exactly what Mark, and others before him, did.

Trust Protectors Report - Did Mark reveal confidential information shared with the DTPs by Ryan Taylor?

Subsequent to the meeting on 22nd Feb 2022 where Ryan announced his departure to the TPs, the agreed-upon messaging for Ryan's departure was not honored by DCG Board members, with several posts from DCG Board members incorrectly informing the network and DCG employees that Ryan was either removed, or forced out, “lynched” etc, and directly passing blame to MNOs. This is wholly inappropriate and deceptive behavior given the messaging agreed with the DTPs. Therefore, we do not believe it is warranted, or helpful, for DCG board members to demand severe consequences for Mark for just being honest in response to a DCG initiated deviation from the messaging agreed upon between Ryan, DCG and the TPs.

Ryan's wishes to conceal the specifics of his personal reasons have still remained confidential and have been honored, as have all other details of the meeting.

We are not able to confirm if Ryan's request for those personal reasons to be removed from the DCG Board meeting notes from February 3rd, 2022 have happened or not. We were informed by Ryan that it was the responsibility of Robert to do that.

Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BOxH-bVpRACVtX9Mryt7-TYbh9SPEaRO/view

I repeat : As the ONLY person who could have authorized working with Alisha from the BD DCG side, I can confirm that Alisha was not working with DCG in any capacity at the time Mark fabricated this new set of lies.

 

[JOL]

Pre-emptions are one thing, actions count more than intentions for some.

Did Glen embezzle money from DCG? No
Did Mark disclose confidential information? Yes
After that, everyone will judge according to their own values.
As a person
As a professional

To know if a person has had a romantic adventure or not, to know if he is married or not,
In and of itself, it doesn't matter,
What is important to me is to have used privacy as an argument and to have exposed it publicly without the agreement of the person concerned.
It seems to me that the respect of the private life is one of the pillars of Dash (without falling into extremism)
And this is not just a computer code for some people, it is an approach, a value.

 

[vazaki3]

@Mark Mason , will you add your Trust Protector candicacy into the Dash budget system?

 

[vazaki3]

Did Glen embezzle money from DCG? No

DCG never accepted to report to dashwatch. And www.dashwatch.org is offline now.
The only report we have is this, and it does not give us a lot of information.
So, how do you know that Glen did not embezzle money, without looking at any report?
Is it because you trust him?

 

[kot]

So, how do you know that Glen did not embezzle money, without looking at any report?
Is it because you trust him?

All DTPs have access to DCG books on request. They can check it easily.

 

[vazaki3]

All DTPs have access to DCG books on request. They can check it easily.

"Easily" and "upon request" seems contradictory to me. More questions arise:

1. In case a DTP's request to investigate the DCG books is accepted and he discovers something unusual, is he allowed to reveal the information to the network?
2. Also, how do we know that the DCG books presented to the DTP upon request, are the real ones? Who keeps these offline books and where?

For example, could a TP request the DCG books for the below case? Because obviously someone is not telling the truth (or at least he is trying to obfuscate the truth).

A Trust Protector was contacted and has been informed directly by Glenn (after posting his public response) confirming that Alisha had in fact worked with DCG personnel on content creation around the time the community brought the police report to DCG’s attention.

I repeat : As the ONLY person who could have authorized working with Alisha from the BD DCG side, I can confirm that Alisha was not working with DCG in any capacity at the time Mark fabricated this new set of lies.

 

[kot]

"Easily" and "upon request" seems contradictory to me.

What contradiction can you see there? This is not an open system (it would be illegal to reveal financial data of private individuals + there are many other conditions required to keep the books closed) - therefore access rights need to be in place and granted upon request.

In case a DTP's request to investigate the DCG books is accepted and he discovers something unusual, is he allowed to reveal the information to the network?

Of course - there is nothing to hide there. We do a financial report on a monthly basis during the board call, report to the community every quarter, and audit done by an external accountant every year. There are no secrets there and Glenn does our accounting according to GAAP.

Also, how do we know that the DCG books presented to the DTP upon request, are the real ones? Who keeps these offline books and where?

You don't know much about accounting and accounting software, do you?
There is no such thing as offline books in DCG. There are no real and unreal books - we use an external, standardized accounting system (Quickbooks) and every position and change is logged there automatically. Auditor can inspect every change made in the books.

For example, could a TP request the DCG books for the below case? Because obviously someone is not telling the truth (or at least he is trying to obfuscate the truth).

Yes, sure - nevertheless none of them even tried to verify this accusation so far. This is one of the reasons, why I find this case so outrageous.

 

[vazaki3]

Lets first discuss your first quote...

What contradiction can you see there? This is not an open system (it would be illegal to reveal financial data of private individuals + there are many other conditions required to keep the books closed) - therefore access rights need to be in place and granted upon request.

Illegal to reveal where the money of the Dash budget goes? I think this is not illegal. The network should be aware of the individuals that receive its money. Someone may claim it is illegal to hide this information from the network. And of course, you refer to what country's law?

What other conditions are required that force DCG to keep its books hidden? If you chosed a country that its laws require the books to be hidden, couldnt you switch to another country where the DCG books are allowed to be visible to everyone, so that the networks knows where its money goes?

Or at least, if not visible to anyone, at least reveal the DashCoreGroup books to the DashTrustProtectors so that they can check them 24/7 and in real time, without asking any permission from the DCG. It is much more fair that way, isnt it?

 

[kot]

What other conditions are required that force DCG to keep its books hidden?

Legal systems of the countries where our contributors work. We obey the law as a legal entity.
DTPs will not be stopped or not permitted to access any information they request. Period. There is no reason to speculate otherwise.

 

[vazaki3]

Legal systems of the countries where our contributors work. We obey the law as a legal entity.

To what countries your contributors work, and to what laws do you obey?

DTPs will not be stopped or not permitted to access any information they request.

DTPs will not be stopped to access any information they request.
DTPs will not be permitted to access any information they request.

This seems contradictory to me.

In what country's law do you refer?

 

[qwizzie]

To what countries your contributors work, and to what laws do you obey?

DTPs will not be stopped to access any information they request.
DTPs will not be permitted to access any information they request.

This seems contradictory to me.

In what country's law do you refer?

This is what kot typed : DTPs will not be stopped or not permitted to access any information they request.
This is what you changed his words into into : DTPs will not be permitted to access any information they request.

Do you see the difference ?

 

[vazaki3]

This is what kot typed : DTPs will not be stopped or not permitted to access any information they request.
This is what you changed his words into into : DTPs will not be permitted to access any information they request.

Do you see the difference ?

No, I cannot see the difference....I am not a native english speaker and I dont understand this syntax. Please elaborate.
"DTPs will not be stopped or not permitted to access."

What is this OR? Is it a logical OR? A XOR? an AND?

 

[qwizzie]

No....I am not a native english speaker and I dont understand this syntax. Please elaborate.
DTPs will not be stopped or not permitted to access.

What is this OR? Is it a logical one? A XOR? an AND?

Maybe this will help :

'DTPs will not be stopped'

'or not permitted to access'

' any information they request.'

Pretty clear to me, and i am also not a native english speaker

 

[vazaki3]

Maybe this will help :

'DTPs will not be stopped'

'or not permitted to access any information they request.'

Pretty clear to me, and i am also not a native english speaker

DTPs not permitted to access any information they request.
So what does it differs of what I undestood?

 

[qwizzie]

DTPs not permitted to access any information they request.
So what does it differs of what I undestood?

It simply means that DTP's will not be stopped requesting information, (n)or will they be stopped accessing that information.

 

[vazaki3]

It simply means that DTP's will not be stopped requesting information, (n)or will they be stopped accessing that information.

Thanks for the clarification. It is a nor, I understand now.

But anyway, my main question remains.
Why is the below illegal?

Reveal the DashCoreGroup books to the DashTrustProtectors so that they can check them 24/7 and in real time, without asking any permission from the DCG. It is much more fair that way, isnt it?

And if it is illegal, which law of what country says so?

 

[JOL]

Dear, Glen , @kot , @ErnestoContrerasLatAm ,

the network has listened to you, and answered you clearly.

with the result of DTPs vote :

and with the vote of the budget :

in view of the vote of confidence made on Rodrigo Ambriss, I hope that he will be able to restore confidence in the DTPs

 

[vazaki3]

But anyway, my main question remains. Why is the below illegal?

Reveal the DCG books to the DTPs so that they can check them 24/7 and in real time, without asking any permission from the DCG. It is much more fair that way, isnt it?

And if it is illegal, which law of what country says so?

Furthermore, the network should give incentives to the TP to investigate potential money embezzlement.
Maybe give them a percentage from the money proved to be embezzled? Lets vote the numbers for this percentage.

By giving to the TrustProtectors a real time tool that investigates the money flow you make the investigations easier.
This is how wikipedia works and succeds to be somehow correct. They patrol the recent changes.

 

[kot]

And if it is illegal, which law of what country says so?

EVERY legal system in the western world considers personal financial data confidential and protected.
Please educate yourself. This discussion is pointless, if you don't know basics of accounting, corporate laws and civil laws.

 

[vazaki3]

EVERY legal system in the western world considers personal financial data confidential and protected.
Please educate yourself. This discussion is pointless, if you don't know basics of accounting, corporate laws and civil laws.

Of course not. Civil servants's financial data are not confidential, at least not in every legal system in the world.
DCG employees should be considered as civil servants....

You claim that it is illegal in the US to reveal how much each DCG employee is being paid. Please provide the exact law.

 

[kot]

DCG employees should be considered as civil servants

No, they should not.
Educate yourself please. EOT from my side.

 

[vazaki3]

No, they should not.
Educate yourself please. EOT from my side.

There is a difference between "they should not" and "they cannot".
I dont know the law you refer to, but there are western laws that allow the salaries to be transparent and public.

Fiche de synthèse : Le financement de la vie politique : partis et campagnes électorales - Rôle et pouvoirs de l'Assemblée nationale - Assemblée nationale (assemblee-nationale.fr)

Fiche de synthèse : Le financement de la vie politique : partis et campagnes électorales - Rôle et pouvoirs de l'Assemblée nationale - Assemblée nationale

Presentation de l'Assemblee nationale, du palais Bourbon, de ses membres (deputes), de son fonctionnement et de son actualite : agenda, travaux en cours (amendements, rapports, commissions, lois), textes et dossiers (legislatifs ou d'actualite)...

www2-assemblee--nationale-fr.translate.goog

III. – Transparency of the heritage of elected officials
In addition to the financing of political parties and electoral campaigns, one of the objectives of the legislator in 1988 was to ensure the transparency of the assets of elected officials, so as to prevent them from taking advantage of their elective functions to enrich themselves unduly.
To this end, an obligation to declare assets has been instituted, filed at the start and then at the end of the term of office.
Since the entry into force of Organic Law No. 2013-906 and Law No. 2013-907 of October 11, 2013 relating to the transparency of public life, this declarative obligation does not only concern elected officials since they are subject to it. members of the Government, members of Parliament, French representatives in the European Parliament, holders of local executive functions or elected representatives with signing authority, cabinet employees, members of independent authorities, holders of jobs or functions by decision of the Government and appointed by the Council of Ministers, as well as the presidents and managing directors of a certain number of companies, enterprises, establishments and bodies over which the State exercises total or partial control.
Pursuant to this same text, the same persons exercising these functions or mandates must draw up a declaration of interests or, for members of Parliament, a declaration of interests and activities.
Under the aforementioned law of 11 October 2013, the receipt, verification, control and publication of these declarations are no longer the responsibility of the Commission for the financial transparency of political life but of the High Authority for the transparency of public life that this text establishes.
Penal sanctions are provided for against persons who knowingly omit to declare a substantial part of their assets or who provide a misleading assessment that undermines the sincerity of their declaration. The above-mentioned law of October 11, 2013 strengthened this system by providing for a three-year prison sentence and a fine of €45,000 for persons falling within its scope in the event of: non-filing of the declaration of assets or the declaration of interests; declaration omitting a substantial part of the assets or interests; transmission of a false valuation of the assets.
For these same offences, the law also provides for additional penalties: denial of civil rights; disqualification from holding public office.

The above law not only applies to elected officials, but also to civil servants.
And of course there are also the Collective agreements which make the salaries of the employees tottaly transparent and known.
As you can see, and despite your false claims, there are western laws that reveal the financial revenues of individuals.

Of course for the case of Dash I am not implying a KYC , I just expect the network (or at least the DASH Trust Protectors) to know the nickname of each DCG employee and how much is being paid. And in the case there is fraud and an employee appears with many names and gets multiple salaries, there is always this NON_
KYC proof of individuality method .